17 Aug 12
Originally posted by no1marauderA re-told accusation that you know is unsupported by evidence may not be a lie in the legal sense, but it is absolutely a lie in the moral sense.
How can that possibly rate as a "Pants on Fire"? There's no evidence that what Reid said isn't true i.e. that an unnamed investor in Mitt Romney’s company, Bain Capital, told him that Romney hadn’t paid any taxes for 10 years.
Romney could show that the claim isn't true very easily, but refuses to.
If Romney came out and said "Barack Obama's schoolteacher told me that he was born in Nairobi" and then refused to name the teacher or any evidence to support this assertion, I'd rate it Pants on Fire as well.
Romney can't refute the claim unless he releases his returns, which he obviously does not want to do, probably for unrelated reasons (e.g., low effective tax rate or large foreign based income).
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76Okay. I was unaware of that. Thanks for clearing that up.
Uh, wrong...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/06/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-anonymous-source-told-him-mitt-rom/
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., touched off a firestorm last week after he claimed that an unnamed investor in Mitt Romney’s company, Bain Capital, told him that Romney hadn’t paid any taxes for 10 ye ...[text shortened]... h nothing solid to back it up. Pants on Fire!
Pants on fire, Senator Reid.
You do realize that prior to the last 10 years it is possible that Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years, right? 1990-2000 for example.
I'm not saying it is likely, just possible.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76I'd say a re-told accusation that you know is unsupported by evidence is a lie in every sense. However, I see no reason to believe that Reid's statement fits that category. He got information from what he believes is a credible source (unless your claim he just flat out made the whole thing up which seems implausible). He can't reveal the name of the source if the source doesn't want to be revealed without committing a moral wrong. Perhaps he used poor judgment in repeating the claim without being able to reveal the source but that doesn't make him a liar. For Politifact to say he is without any credible evidence that he just made this up is fairly outrageous.
A re-told accusation that you know is unsupported by evidence may not be a lie in the legal sense, but it is absolutely a lie in the moral sense.
If Romney came out and said "Barack Obama's schoolteacher told me that he was born in Nairobi" and then refused to name the teacher or any evidence to support this assertion, I'd rate it Pants on Fire as well.
R ...[text shortened]... robably for unrelated reasons (e.g., low effective tax rate or large foreign based income).
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainPossible? Sure. But unsupported by evidence.
Okay. I was unaware of that. Thanks for clearing that up.
You do realize that prior to the last 10 years it is possible that Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years, right? 1990-2000 for example.
I'm not saying it is likely, just possible.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76His tax forms could be evidence not revealed yet. We know his tax forms exist and the IRS has them. Whether or not the evidence exists either way is still unknown to most people.
Possible? Sure. But unsupported by evidence.
Inquiring minds want to know. I don't see this going away until Romney releases it. People want to know how he pays such low tax rates for a millionaire. 13% is less than a lot of middle class people pay and he is upper class.
17 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe burden of proff is on the accuser NOT the accused. What he said is slanderous. It is Malicious gossip.
Reid's statement repeating the statement of someone in a position to have knowledge of Romney's taxes is "evidence". Calling Reid a liar is beyond the pale.
17 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonRomney should sue him then. I wonder what documents Reid would be entitled to in Discovery ..............................
The burden of proff is on the accuser NOT the accused. What he said is slanderous. It is Malicious gossip.
Of course, saying someone didn't pay any taxes isn't "slanderous" unless you claim they acted illegally (which Reid didn't do).
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by no1marauderAren't Senators exempt from that sort of thing for lies they tell on the Senate floor?
Romney should sue him then. I wonder what documents Reid would be entitled to in Discovery ..............................
Of course, saying someone didn't pay any taxes isn't "slanderous" unless you claim they acted illegally (which Reid didn't do).
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonAs usual, you have the facts wrong (you really shouldn't rely solely on right wing blogs and attack sites).
No. It was on the Senate floor and he did it there to be insulated.
He first made the statement in an interview.
Then he said it on the Senate floor.
Then he released a written statement.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/06/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-anonymous-source-told-him-mitt-rom/
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199764
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76Well, if that's his position, that there's nothing wrong with taking those loopholes, then why the secrecy? He should embrace his actions, just like he should embrace Bain.
Who cares? Unless he did something illegal, why is it a bad thing to take advantage of tax loopholes that exist? If the loopholes he drove a truck through are bad, then close 'em. That's Congress' job, not the taxpayer's. I thought those rebates we got in the mail a few years ago were a terrible idea. But you can bet your sweet behind that I cashed my rebate ch ...[text shortened]... s a different story. But until someone can show that, all of this is a lot of hot air.
18 Aug 12
1 edit
From the BBC:
"Governor Romney apparently fears that the more he offers, the more our campaign will demand that he provide," Mr Messina [Obama's campaign manager] wrote.
"So I am prepared to provide assurances on just that point. If the Governor will release five years of returns, I commit in turn that we will not criticize him for not releasing more - neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign."
Releasing several years of tax returns has become a standard move in recent presidential elections.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19299676
Wasn't this a chance for Romney to neutralize any traction this issue might have?
"Mr Rhoades [Romney's campaign manager]rejected the offer in an email that began: "Hey Jim, thanks for the note.
"It is clear that President Obama wants nothing more than to talk about Governor Romney's tax returns instead of the issues that matter to voters, like putting Americans back to work, fixing the economy and reining in spending.
"If Governor Romney's tax returns are the core message of your campaign, there will be ample time for President Obama to discuss them over the next 81 days."
How can the Romney team float the notion that "Romney's tax returns are the core message [of the Obama campaign]" if the Obama team is promising not to "criticize [Romney] for not releasing more - neither in ads nor in other public communications or commentary for the rest of the campaign"?